Call me naive, but...

the assurance in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action between Iran and the E3/EU+3, while obviously not sufficient in itself, is not insignificant either:

Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any
nuclear weapons.

That's reaffirmed,  by the way, because Iran has asserted repeatedly that Khamenei declared as much in a fatwa, though that fatwa was allegedly never written down. Now, there it is, and again, standing alone as the third numbered provision in the document's preamble:

iii. Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or
acquire any nuclear weapons.

Jeremy Ben-Ami: economic pressure doesn't work?

Jeffrey Goldberg, previewing an interview he's soon to publish with J Street founder Jeremy Ben-Ami, puts up this response of Ben-Ami's to Peter Beinart's proposed Jewish boycott of West Bank settler goods:

"...I don't think that it makes any sense to put negative pressure on people whose behavior you hope to change. I think that the way that Israelis will feel comfortable making the compromises and the sacrifices -- and Israel as a whole, not just the settlers -- is when they really feel that not only American Jews, but the United States, is going to be there for them. I think if you begin to do things that say, "We're not really with you, we're against you, we're putting pressure on you," I think that causes people to pull more into a shell and pull back."

Hmm. I guess Ben-Ami doesn't think much of the sanctions imposed on Iran?  In December 2009, when Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.) sponsored a bill in Dec. 2009 granting the Obama administration additional powers to place gasoline sanctions on that adversary, here's what he said:

A spotlight on patient diplomacy

In the Times' account of the WikiLeaks revelations vis-a-vis Iran, the authors'* admiration for the Obama's administration's response to Iran's nuclear program is palpable:.

[The cables] also offer new insights into how President Obama, determined to merge his promise of “engagement” with his vow to raise the pressure on the Iranians, assembled a coalition that agreed to impose an array of sanctions considerably harsher than any before attempted.

When Mr. Obama took office, many allies feared that his offers of engagement would make him appear weak to the Iranians. But the cables show how Mr. Obama’s aides quickly countered those worries by rolling out a plan to encircle Iran with economic sanctions and antimissile defenses. In essence, the administration expected its outreach to fail, but believed that it had to make a bona fide attempt in order to build support for tougher measures.

Israel's 'sigh of relief' over sanctions pursuit

Massimo Calibrisi's long account of conflict and partial rapprochement between Obama and Netanyahu, this parting tidbit caught my eye:

On Iran, Obama's latest push for sanctions has Israelis breathing a sigh of relief that his promises to get tough on Tehran's nuclear program are not just for show.

To what extent does palliating Israel explain the Obama Administration's curt rebuff of the nuclear fuel swap deal with Iran brokered by Brazil and Turkey  --  whose presidents claim that Obama encouraged them to pursue the negotiation?